Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the text of the resolution urging the President of the United States to allow for the full public release of all remaining records pertaining to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy that are held by the National Archives and Records Administration and to reject any claims for the continued postponement of the full public release of those records, be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the text of the resolution commending the National Archives and Records Administration and its staff for working to comply with the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 and release all records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy by October 26, 2017, be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I wish to congratulate and thank Mr. David Ahart and Ms. Cathy Glenn on their retirement for their more than 28 years of service to the U.S. Senate. I have worked with Dave and Cathy in various roles within the U.S. Senate Recording Studio for nearly three decades. Before working in the radio division, Dave worked on the television side of the Senate Recording studio. Cathy also worked on the television side before coming to radio. Before that, she worked for Senator Dennis DeConcini of Arizona. It is not unusual for me to go to the Senate recording studio multiple times a week. If you do the math, you can see I have gotten to know Dave and Cathy very well over the years. I have always said that representative government is a two-way street, and communicating with Iowans through the media has always been an important part of my job. Dave and Cathy are an instrumental part of that process. Put simply, they have helped me keep in touch with Iowans, and for that, I couldn't be more grateful. It's also worth noting that Dave and Cathy are immensely kind and patient. Many days, my schedule can change in an instant. Dave and Cathy are always generous with their time and help me and my staff complete the work that needs to be done. Those who know Dave and Cathy know you never leave their studio without a smile and laughter. They are as friendly now as they were 30 years ago. Dave, I hope you get back to Denison soon and stop at Cronks. Dave had family who lived in Denison, IA. Cronks is a mutually favorite restaurant that I always try to stop at when traveling through the area. Cathy, as you celebrate, make sure to eat an extra piece of chocolate for me. I think you have as big of a sweet tooth as I do. I wish Dave and Cathy all the best in retirement and the years to come. So to you two, I say thank you for all you have done. The U.S. Senate, the Senate Recording Studio, my staff and I will be forever grateful for your service.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, the Senate is voting to confirm Makan Delrahim to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division. When Mr. Delrahim was 10 years old, his family fled the tyranny of Iran and settled in the United States, knowing no English. Since then, Mr. Delrahim received his B.S. from the University of California in 1991, his J.D. from the George Washington University School of Law in 1995, and his M.S. from Johns Hopkins University in 2002. Mr. Delrahim's professional career and broad range of legal experiences have prepared him well to lead the Antitrust Division. He has experience in both the private and public sectors. He has worked at various law firms and served in government, including as staff director to then-Chairman Hatch of the Senate Judiciary Committee, deputy counsel to the President of the United States, and Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice. He also served as a Commissioner of the U.S. Antitrust Modernization Commission. Mr. Delrahim will serve as the highest ranking Iranian-American official ever at the Department of Justice. His journey epitomizes the American dream. He is well known and liked by my colleagues and me. I am pleased to support his nomination today.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for approximately 6 or 7 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor because I am very disturbed about some actions coming out of EPA affecting biofuels and contrary to what the President promised. In other words, I think people working for the President aren't following the President's direction. As my colleagues know well, I have championed renewable fuels and other energies for a long period of time. I have worked hard to enact policies to encourage the growth of renewable electricity from sources such as wind and solar. The same is true for biofuels. I have pursued policies to grow our country's production of renewable fuels, such as conventional corn ethanol, biodiesel, and cellulosic ethanol. I support renewable energy because it is good for the economy. It is good for our national security. It is good for our balance of trade. It is good for the rural economies, and it is good for energy independence. I was pleased that in the most recent Presidential election, then Candidate Trump--now our President--made clear his support for ethanol and the renewable fuels standard. He said clearly: ``We are going to protect the Renewable Fuels Standard.'' On another occasion, Candidate Trump recognized the benefits of the industry when he said this at an ethanol biorefinery: Amazing what you've been able to do--amazing. And it's great for the country and the investment is great. Beyond even the product, the investment and the jobs and everything else are great for the country. Finally, at a summit focusing on renewable fuels in Iowa, as a candidate in January of 2016, Mr. Trump said this: The RFS, which is Renewable Fuel Standard, is an important tool in the mission to achieve energy independence to the United States. I will do all that is in my power as President to achieve that goal. . . . As President, I will encourage Congress to be cautious in attempting to charge and change any part of the RFS. . . . Energy independence is a requirement of America to become great again. Candidate Trump continued: My theme is `Make America Great Again.' It's an important part of it. The EPA should ensure that biofuel RVOs, or blend levels, match the statutory level set by Congress under the

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to support Noel Francisco to serve as the next Solicitor General. Mr. Francisco comes to us with impressive credentials. He graduated from the University of Chicago Law School and clerked for Judge Luttig on the Fourth Circuit and Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. He has spent time in both the private sector at prestigious law firms and in the public sector as counsel to the President at the White House and in leadership roles at the Department of Justice. Mr. Francisco has impressive experience arguing before the Supreme Court. His client won in each of the three cases he argued there. He has been named one of Washington, DC's ``Super Lawyers,'' as well as one of the ``100 Most Influential Lawyers in America.'' It is vital for the Office of the Solicitor General to have its leader in place, so I am pleased that, after waiting for over 3 months on the Senate floor, we are finally voting on this nominee today.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to question the plan for auditing the Department of Defense. The new Chief Financial Officer, Mr. David Norquist, presented a plan to the Armed Services Committee on May 9. It appears flawed, like a lot of other such plans. The Department may be audit ready by the September 30 deadline, but the goal--and the goal ought to be a clean opinion--isn't in the mix. In its place, we get another lame excuse: ``I recognize it will take time to go from being audited to passing an audit.'' We have heard this story over and over for 26 years. When will it come to an end? I don't think the Pentagon has a clue if the Department is truly audit ready. Then, why is the Chief Financial Officer predicting failure before the audit even starts? Doubletalk is necessary to accomplish that goal. A monster is lurking in the weeds, and nobody wants to talk about it. It is the ``deal- breakers.'' That is a term that is often used in audit reports. They are red-flagged accounting issues listed in Department of Defense reports for years and years. They are prefaced by this warning: ``The deal-breakers prevent clean opinions.'' If Mr. Norquist wants to win this war, he had better get on top of the ``deal-breakers.'' But he ignored them in testimony, focusing instead on this apparent distraction: DOD has spent too much time ``preparing for full-scope audit without starting it.'' We need to pinpoint ``vulnerabilities''--those are his words, and he went on--``to drive change to a clean opinion.'' Suggesting that the Department of Defense lags behind on audit starts or needs more audits to spot weaknesses seems very wrongheaded. The Department has conducted nonstop audits since 1991--294 financial audits, to be exact--and 90 percent were failures, but a few were full-scope audits with clean opinions. Together, the Corps of Engineers and the Military Retirement Fund earned 28 clean opinions out of 43 starts. In the case of the Corps of Engineers, auditors relied on unorthodox procedures known as ``manual workarounds'' or ``audit trail reconstruction work.'' Highly paid auditors scramble around searching for missing records. These procedures work on small jobs, but the point is that they are an inefficient substitute for a modern accounting system. Now, I have talked about small jobs. To the contrary, on big jobs this approach is a nonstarter. Yet, that is exactly where Mr. Norquist intends to go--the toughest, the unauditable: the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, and the rest of the Defense Department. This is where auditing hits the wall--over 200 starts without a successful finish. If these audits begin before the accounting house is in order, the Norquist plan may be swallowed up by the swamp. The destructive power of the deal-breakers was hammered home by the most important audit so far--the Marine Corps audit. Their impact was exposed in a first-rate report issued by the Government Accountability Office. I spoke at length about that report on the Marines on August 4, 2015. Today, I will touch on it just briefly. This background is very, very important. Back in September 2008, the Marine Corps, the smallest of the big ones, stepped up to the plate. The Marine Corps boldly declared that it was audit ready. As a pilot project, the Marine Corps would lead the way. High hopes for a breakthrough were not to be. Ten years and five audits later, the Marine Corps is still stuck on square one. The inspector general and the Government Accountability Office determined that it was never ready for audit. It failed for the same reasons as all the other audits failed, going back to the term ``deal breakers.'' To make matters worse, there was an attempt to cover up these shortcomings. Initially, a clean opinion was issued. The then-Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, gave the Marine Corps an award for being the first service to earn a clean opinion. The opinion did not stand up to scrutiny. The evidence did not meet ``professional auditing standards.'' So the inspector general had to withdraw, leaving Mr. Hagel with egg all over his face. The deputy inspector general for audit was removed and reassigned, and the accounting firm involved lost the contract to Kearney & Company, where the now Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Norquist, was a partner. Without strong leadership, the Marine Corps could be the Norquist template. This is where we have been before: audit ready but light years away from a clean opinion. So that takes you to nowheresville. Why go there when you know what you are going to find? Although lessons were learned, the end result was mostly waste--$32 million for five premature audits. DOD is big, big business for these auditing firms, and what do we get? No clean opinion. The deal-breakers, which doomed the Marine Corps audit and all the others, are alive and well. They are still driving the freight train with no fix in sight. Yet, in spite of these formidable barriers, the Marine Corps is once again shooting for the moon. It jumped out in front of all the other military services by starting a full financial audit, which the press calls a ``mammoth task.'' Why would the outcome be any different this time around, when we just exposed within the last 2 years that what they thought was a clean audit was not such a clean audit. The government's expert on accounting--and I call him the expert on government accounting because he is Comptroller General Gene Dodaro-- understands the dilemma. The $10 billion spent annually on fixing the accounting system, he says, ``has not yielded positive results.'' Money is being spent in the wrong places. Mr. Dodaro wonders if the Department of Defense has the talent to get it right, and that is his word--``talent.'' With his plan resting on shaky ground, Mr. Norquist may need to shift gears. For starters, the cost of the full financial audits, which are touted as the largest ever undertaken, could top $200 million. Spending so much money on audits doomed to failure would be a gross waste of tax dollars. Now, I am not suggesting that Mr. Norquist back off. Mr. Norquist just needs to get a handle on the root cause of the problem, and the feeder systems are that root cause. As a main source of unreliable transaction data, the feeder systems are the driver behind the deal- breakers. Fix them, and then the rest should be just a piece of cake. Department of Defense reports have repeatedly called for ``testing the feeder systems.'' However, according to the Government Accountability Office, those tests were never, never performed. So the aggressive testing and aggressive verification of transactions are the right places to start. Senators Johnson, Ernst, Paul, and this Senator are sponsoring an amendment to make that happen. Once all of the tricky technical issues are ironed out and testing provides confidence that the system is reliable, the plan will gel. Audit readiness will be self-evident, not contrived. Full financial accounting could begin. Clean opinions should follow, and those clean opinions should be our goal. There has been 26 years of hard-core foot-dragging that shows that internal resistance to auditing the books runs very, very deep. It will take strong, confident leadership and strong determination to root out that internal resistance to auditing the books. I am counting on Secretary Mattis and Chief Financial Officer Norquist to get the job done in the shortest time possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the IRS has never been, and likely will never be, an agency anyone is glad to hear from. However, American taxpayers should at least have confidence that they will receive a fair shake from the agency. Without this, our system of taxation that relies on voluntary reporting of income will fall apart. In recent years, gross mismanagement and inappropriate actions by certain IRS employees have shaken what confidence taxpayers have had in the agency. Today, Senator Thune and I are reintroducing legislation we introduced last Congress aimed at ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect taxpayer rights by preventing IRS abuses. Called the Taxpayer Bill of Rights Enhancement Act (TBORE), our bill updates and strengthens several provisions enacted in prior Taxpayer Bill of Rights legislation. I am pleased that several of the provisions in last Congress' version of the bill were enacted into law, including codifying the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. However, more must be done if we are going to renew the taxpaying public's confidence in the IRS. No legislation is likely to fix all of the IRS recent shortcomings on its own. There is a need for a change of culture within the IRS. We hope our bill will serve as a catalyst for a cultural shift within the IRS. Our bill sends a clear message to the IRS--Congress is not going to tolerate poor service and the systematic abuse of taxpayer rights. We look forward to working with our colleagues toward reforming the IRS and protecting taxpayer rights.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the IRS has never been, and likely will never be, an agency anyone is glad to hear from. However, American taxpayers should at least have confidence that they will receive a fair shake from the agency. Without this, our system of taxation that relies on voluntary reporting of income will fall apart. In recent years, gross mismanagement and inappropriate actions by certain IRS employees have shaken what confidence taxpayers have had in the agency. Today, Senator Thune and I are reintroducing legislation we introduced last Congress aimed at ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect taxpayer rights by preventing IRS abuses. Called the Taxpayer Bill of Rights Enhancement Act (TBORE), our bill updates and strengthens several provisions enacted in prior Taxpayer Bill of Rights legislation. I am pleased that several of the provisions in last Congress' version of the bill were enacted into law, including codifying the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. However, more must be done if we are going to renew the taxpaying public's confidence in the IRS. No legislation is likely to fix all of the IRS recent shortcomings on its own. There is a need for a change of culture within the IRS. We hope our bill will serve as a catalyst for a cultural shift within the IRS. Our bill sends a clear message to the IRS--Congress is not going to tolerate poor service and the systematic abuse of taxpayer rights. We look forward to working with our colleagues toward reforming the IRS and protecting taxpayer rights.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to support the nomination of Tim Kelly to be a judge on the DC district court. Tim serves as my chief counsel for national security, senior crime counsel, and majority staff director for the Caucus on International Narcotics Control. That is quite a professional title, isn't it? And he has done an excellent job serving not only this chairman of the Judiciary Committee but all of the Judiciary Committee. Tim's career boasts a wide range of legal experience. After Tim graduated from Georgetown University Law Center in 1997, he served as a law clerk to Judge Buckwalter of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He worked as an associate at Arnold & Porter, and he dedicated 6 months of his career to work for the Legal Aid Society. Tim spent a significant portion of his career serving as a Federal prosecutor, including several years as an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, where he prosecuted a wide range of criminal cases in the very court for which he is being considered today. He also served as trial attorney in the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice, where he prosecuted public corruption cases. He has tried approximately 30 cases during his career, as well as negotiated dozens of guilty pleas. Tim is a very talented attorney and is well liked by everyone--by staff and Members on both sides of the aisle. His collegiality and ability to get along with folks will serve him well on the bench. I know he will show proper respect to the litigants and attorneys who appear before him, as well as the staff who will serve his court. Tim's counsel and advice have served the members of the Judiciary Committee well. Just to point to one example of his work on behalf of this committee, I would note he was the lead Senate Republican Judiciary staffer on the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of last year, which happened to be signed into law by President Obama. This bill will help countless numbers of folks struggling with drug addiction. Tim's vast legal experiences and his thoughtful approach to his work will help him be an excellent Federal judge. I believe he has the temperament to hear any case that will come before him with a fair mind, seeking to do justice for all. Of course, others have recognized Tim's merits as well. The American Bar Association gave him a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating, which is the highest rating the ABA gives, and he has received awards for his work from the Department of Justice, the Department of Energy, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Tim will make an excellent judge, and I am honored to support his nomination today. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of his nomination. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for her fine remarks on Mr. Wray. I am here for the same reason she is, and I thank her for also facilitating getting this through the committee in a very quick way. Thank you.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the nomination of Christopher Wray to be Director of the FBI. Mr. Wray possesses the skill, the character, and the unwavering commitment to impartial enforcement of the law we need in an FBI Director. Based on the unanimous vote Mr. Wray received from the Judiciary Committee, I am confident my colleagues believe this as well. Mr. Wray has an accomplished record as a lawyer. He was a Federal prosecutor for a number of years and went on to serve in various senior roles at the Department of Justice, including leading the criminal division at the Department. Mr. Wray earned the Department's highest award for public service and leadership. His prior record of service demonstrates his competence in leading within the Federal Government and demonstrates he will be able to lead effectively at the FBI. He has shown he has the expertise needed to address the wide range of policy issues currently facing the FBI. Of course, my colleagues and I asked Mr. Wray about his positions on many such issues during his hearing. He answered those questions very well, but the most important thing we wanted to learn from him had to do with his view of the job and where his loyalties lie. As all of us in this body know, when we take the oath of office, we affirm that we will support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We don't pledge support to any member of the government or even to a political party. We pledge our loyalty to the Constitution and to the rule of law. Many Members asked Mr. Wray very pointed questions about loyalty during his hearing. I was impressed with his plainspoken, candid answers, and I take him at his word when he says that his ``loyalty is to the Constitution and the rule of law'' and when he says that he will ``never allow the FBI's work to be driven by anything other than the facts, the law, and the impartial pursuit of justice. Period--full stop.'' Now, if he is confirmed, Mr. Wray will step into this role at a crucial moment, not only in the history of the FBI but in the history of this Nation. As we know, multiple investigations are underway, including by this body, to clearly lay out Russia's activities that attempted to influence the 2016 election. These are important and sensitive investigations, and they cannot be inappropriately influenced by people in powerful positions in any way whatsoever. This applies to the FBI Director. Mr. Wray was asked very directly what he would do if presented with the opportunity to influence these investigations in any way. He told the committee that he will not condone tampering with investigations and that he would resign rather than be unduly influenced in any manner. Mr. Wray's record of service and his reputation give us no reason to doubt him. He was forthright when he was asked specific questions about the events leading up to his being offered the job of FBI Director by President Trump. He made no loyalty pledges then, and I expect him never to make such a pledge moving forward. Mr. Wray will also face the challenge of running the FBI, motivating its staff, and ensuring that the FBI operates effectively and efficiently. My colleagues know I haven't been pleased with how the FBI has--or has not--replied to the Judiciary Committee's inquiries and requests for information, and this doesn't apply just to this Senator but all the Senators on the committee, and it doesn't matter whether Republican or Democratic. They are entitled to ask questions, and they ought to get answers. That is the constitutional responsibility of oversight that all 535 Members of Congress have. Not being satisfied with the FBI in the past, I asked Mr. Wray directly about the FBI's responsiveness to Members of this body. He promised me, and in turn other Members of this body, that he will prioritize responsiveness and transparency to this body. This will allow us to do our vitally important job of oversight over the Nation's top law enforcement agency. I am glad Mr. Wray is ready to work in partnership with the Senate to help us perform our role very effectively. I expect to see improved responsiveness from Mr. Wray to our letters and to see enhanced protection for whistleblowers within the FBI who come forward--and they do that at great risk to themselves--to let this body know where abuses of power are going unnoticed. We owe it to these brave people we call whistleblowers, but they are patriotic people, to give them the protection they deserve. The culture for giving this protection starts at the top with the new FBI Director, Mr. Wray. As I mentioned before, Mr. Wray was voted out of our committee unanimously. The fact that all of my colleagues--Democratic and Republican--trusted Mr. Wray with their ``yea'' vote says what we need to know about Mr. Wray's ability to perform the important role of FBI Director and to do it with integrity, with competence, with professionalism, and the utmost respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. We can't ask for Mr. Wray to do anything more than that. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to confirm Christopher Wray as the next Director of the FBI. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act. I will make some short comments, and then I would like to defer to Senator Whitehouse, and then I would propound a unanimous consent request. I think we will soon be able to pass the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act. I reintroduced this measure this year with Senator Whitehouse. The bill before us is almost the same as the one the Judiciary Committee cleared by voice vote in the 114th Congress, and it is very similar to the one we hotlined last year. We hotlined it in April, and all the Members of this Chamber had several months to review it. We had one objection, and we cleared it earlier this week. The bill would extend a Federal law known as the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act for 5 more years. The centerpiece of this 1974 legislation, which Congress last extended 15 years ago, in 2002, is its core protections for youth. These core protections call for juveniles to be kept out of adult facilities, except in very rare instances. They ensure that juveniles will be kept separated from adult inmates whenever they are housed in adult facilities. They call for reducing disproportionate minority contact in State juvenile justice systems. States adhering to these requirements receive yearly formula grants to support their juvenile justice systems. This bill would promote greater accountability in government spending. The Judiciary Committee, which I chair, heard from multiple whistleblowers that reforms are urgently needed to restore the integrity of the formula grant programs that are the centerpiece of our current juvenile justice law. The Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention administers this formula grant program. This program would be continued for 5 more years under the bill, but the Justice Department would have to do more oversight if this bill is enacted. This bill also calls for evidence-based programs to be accorded priority in funding. The goal is to ensure that scarce Federal resources for juvenile justice will be devoted mostly to the programs that research shows have the greatest merit and will yield the best results for these young people. Finally, I want to take this opportunity to thank our many cosponsors. This bill is truly a bipartisan effort, and many Senators contributed provisions to strengthen this bill since we introduced it last April. The bill reflects the latest scientific research on what works best with at-risk adolescents. At this point, I would ask that the Presiding Officer turn the floor over to Senator Whitehouse. I want to thank Senator Whitehouse for being so persistent in this effort, as well. I thank him for his great help.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, once again, thanks to Senator Whitehouse for his cooperation and working so hard over the course of the last two Congresses to get this done. I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 860 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Grassley amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to and the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 17 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. It is my understanding that if the managers need time to break into my speech, I will be glad to accommodate that. I rise today to inject a dose of badly needed reality into this very important debate. Healthcare is a profoundly personal issue that matters to every single American. In fact, every single Senator in this body ought to agree on this point. Healthcare hits home for each and every constituent we represent from our home States. From standard wellness checks to lifesaving cancer treatments, each of us wants the best, most effective and affordable medical care for the people we love and for ourselves. As policymakers, it is our job to solve problems. It goes without saying that we are facing a big problem right now. Access to affordable healthcare is out of touch for millions of Americans. That is despite the promises made over and over. Remember that ObamaCare was rammed through on a last-ditch Christmas Eve party-line vote. Look at what that got us. Health insurance markets are collapsing around the country. Since 2013, the average premium increase on the individual market has jumped 105 percent. Remember when President Obama promised affordable healthcare for all? He promised we could keep our doctor. He promised that Americans could keep their healthcare plan, and he promised all Americans that their premiums would go down by $2,500. We all know ObamaCare did not uphold these promises. Instead, we got higher taxes, costly penalties, double-digit premium increases, unaffordable copays, job-crushing and wage-crushing employer mandates, and thickets of Federal regulations. Now ObamaCare is collapsing. No one on the other side of the aisle has made an attempt to legislate remedies to the law despite its grave condition. At this very moment, 72,000 Iowans in my home State are gripped with uncertainty. Two insurance carriers have dropped out of the exchanges, leaving only one to offer individual plans starting in January. The policies offered by that insurance company will go up over 40 percent next year, on top of huge increases this year, making it still unaffordable. ObamaCare is unsustainable, unaffordable, and unacceptable. This brings me to the reality check that I mentioned when I started. As I listen to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I am, frankly, astounded that they can deliver their talking points with a straight face. They would like the American people to believe that Republicans are dead set on ripping healthcare away from children, the elderly, and the disabled. Despite their red hot rhetoric, we have neither horns nor tails, but we are dead set on working out the devilish details to get to yes. Democrats' hyperbole and fearmongering are standing in the way of getting the job done for the American people. Fear is easy to achieve. Legislating in good faith is hard work. ObamaCare defenders would rather disparage than engage. They would rather obstruct a path forward than to construct a path forward. They are standing in the way of solving problems. In the process, they are scaring the living daylights out of hard- working Americans who aren't able to stretch their paychecks to afford health insurance for their families. If there is one job the defenders of the big government have mastered, it is the role of Chicken Little. They squawk, cluck, and crow at every opportunity to grow the size, scope, and reach of government into our daily lives. To their way of thinking, ObamaCare was a step toward single payer. They will say and do whatever it takes to secure sweeping, universal government control of the healthcare system, no matter how much it costs the taxpaying public, the toll it takes on the U.S. economy, or the loss of personal freedom. Their message is dead wrong. Our reform efforts are not making the sky fall. The Democrats' rhetoric reminds me of a similar situation. The debate 20-some years ago was to reform welfare by reining in runaway Federal spending and increasing the independence of individuals. Just like now, that debate was full of dire predictions. Some of my colleagues will remember the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, then-chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. He strongly opposed efforts to reform the welfare system. He predicted that the bipartisan proposals would result in an apocalypse and said: If, in 10 years' time, we find children sleeping on grates, picked up in the morning frozen, and ask, why are they here, scavenging, awful to themselves, awful to one another, will anyone remember how it began? It will have begun on the House floor this spring and the Senate chamber this autumn. That is the end of the quote from Senator Moynihan 20 years ago. The facts will show that welfare reform was, in fact, not ``legislative child abuse,'' as the former Senator of Massachusetts Ted Kennedy predicted. Quite the contrary. In the two decades since historic, bipartisan welfare reform was enacted, reality shatters this doomsday prophesy of 20 years ago. The reality is that the number of African-American children living in poverty has fallen to the lowest level in history. The problem still exists and deserves our attention, of course, but 1.5 million fewer children are in poverty today, and 3.4 million more families are independent from assistance. At the time of welfare reform, the Chicken Littles forecasted homelessness, poverty, and despair. Senator Moynihan also said that requiring welfare recipients to work and limiting the length of time that they could collect benefits added up to ``the most brutal act of social policy since Reconstruction. Those involved will take this disgrace to their graves.'' With all due respect to the memories of my former colleagues, their rhetoric simply does not square with reality. The 1996 welfare reform law lifted millions out of generational poverty, replacing lifelong impoverishment and lifestyles of dependency with livelihoods restored with hope and opportunity. These facts separate Democratic rhetoric from reality. In the absence of a credible reason to continue with ObamaCare's failure, the only defense tactic left to the Democrats is fear. In a vein similar to that of her predecessor from New York, former Senator and Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said: ``If Republicans pass this bill, they're the death party.'' In another vein similar to her predecessor, another Senator from Massachusetts said that ``I've read the Republican `health care' bill. This is blood money. They're paying for tax cuts with American lives.'' They are not alone in their obstructionism. The minority leader has said that Republican-led efforts to reform ObamaCare are ``heartless. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It brings shame on the body of the Senate.'' Another Democrat chimed in that the Senate bill is ``downright diabolical'' and would be ``one of the blackest marks on our national history.'' Still another Democrat said his constituents are ``scared for their children, they are scared for their spouses, they are scared for their aging parents. . . . And . . . scared . . . for their own health and well-being.'' Another one chimed in that ``our emergency rooms would be overwhelmed. They would be unable to deal with the scope of that kind of humanitarian need.'' Not surprisingly, the law's champion-in-chief, President Obama, has fueled the fear factor, saying that the Republican efforts to reform the healthcare law would put pregnant mothers, addicts, children with disabilities, and poor adults in harm's way. Such overheated rhetoric shows Democrats have abandoned rhyme, reason, and reality. Too often, the arguments from the other side are based on what Medicare was supposed to do, not what it actually did, which fell far short of projections from the experts. Defenders of ObamaCare are relying on a phantom rather than the reality of the law. Democrats are refusing to work with us toward a better solution that truly works. After years of neglecting consequential problems with a partisan-passed law now on the books, they say that they have a better deal. Let me tell you, thousands of Iowa families and small business owners have contacted me with their personal stories of hardships. To them, ObamaCare has been nothing but a raw deal, rather than a better deal. What good is having insurance, they say, if it is too expensive to use? After more than 7 years of ObamaCare, the chickens have come home to roost. And in less than 10 years, look what happens when government gets in the way of the free market and consumer choice. Well, it is obvious: higher premiums, bigger copays, fewer choices, less freedom. Health insurance that costs too much to use is just not working for hard-working American families. I will end my speech today with an appeal from an Iowan from Avoca, IA. She has contacted me many times about the hardships her family has experienced since ObamaCare was enacted. She pays more than $25,000 a year to insure her family on the individual market. If that sounds like chicken feed to some of ObamaCare's defenders, I urge you with all sincerity to get your heads out of the clouds and join us to fix this flawed law. Republicans and Democrats can work together for the greater good of the country. It is said that when there is a will, there is a way. Many of us recognize that ObamaCare isn't working as promised. Half of us voted this week to move ahead to fix this problem. The other half is blocking any effort put forward to reform the broken law. They are digging in their heels and pulling out all stops of any solution and stopping it dead in its tracks. Again, it reminds me of those who fought tooth and nail to stop welfare reform 20 years ago. I quoted those people from 20 years ago. At the time, they predicted the most dire consequences would befall our most vulnerable citizens. Thank goodness, the pessimists back then did not prevail in their obstruction against welfare reform. While welfare reform has not been perfect, it has restored hope and opportunity to millions of Americans. We can't afford to let the pessimists and obstructionists prevail today against healthcare reform, and they seem to be acting like the very same people that opposed welfare reform 20 years ago. The American people deserve high-quality, affordable healthcare. ObamaCare has not lived up to its promises, so it is time for elected leaders to live up to the promise we made to the American people. Let's worry less about who wins and worry more about who will lose when Congress fails to restore the collapsing Federal law. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on June 20, 2017, I notified the majority leader of my intent to object to any unanimous consent request relating to the nomination of Steven A. Engel, of the District of Columbia, to be the Assistant Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, until he adequately responded to my questions regarding his views on the OLC's May 1, 2017, opinion, ``Authority of Individual Members of Congress to Conduct Oversight of the Executive Branch.'' As I have previously noted, the opinion erroneously states that individual Members of Congress are not constitutionally authorized to conduct oversight. It creates a false distinction between oversight and what it calls nonoversight requests. It relegates requests from individual Members for information from the executive branch to Freedom of Information Act requests. I have written a letter to the President requesting that the OLC opinion be rescinded. The executive branch should properly recognize that individual Members of Congress have a constitutional role in seeking information from the executive branch and should work to voluntarily accommodate those requests. My June 12, 2017, letter to Mr. Engel asked him several questions about the opinion, including whether the opinion met the OLC's own internal standards requiring impartial analysis, whether individual Members of Congress are ``authorized'' to seek information from the executive branch, and what level of deference the executive branch should provide to individual Member requests. Mr. Engel promptly responded to my letter on June 23, 2017, and to a second June 27, 2017, followup letter on July 12, 2017. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Engel's responses be placed in the Record following my remarks. I also met with Mr. Engel in my office on July 19, 2017, to further discuss and clarify his views on the authority of individual Members to request information from the executive branch. Mr. Engel's responses, both in writing and in person, indicate that he agrees each Member, whether or not a chairman of a committee, is a constitutional officer entitled to the respect and best efforts of the executive branch to respond to his or her requests for information to the extent permitted by law. He also agreed: No. 1, that the May 1, 2017, OLC opinion on this topic failed to consider adverse legal authority, specifically Murphy v. Dep't of the Army, 613 F.2d 1151 (D.C. Cir. 1979); and No. 2, that, if confirmed, he would review the opinion; and No. 3, consider whether a more complete analysis of the issue is necessary. I am satisfied that Mr. Engel understands the obligation of all Members of Congress to seek executive branch information to carry out their constitutional responsibilities and the obligation of the executive branch to respect that function and seek comity between the branches. Therefore, I agree a vote should be scheduled on his nomination, and I wish him the very best in his new role.